Re: RES: Where to put Open Transport Tycoon (openttd)
On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards <m.k.edwards@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/19/05, Raul Miller <moth.debian@gmail.com> wrote:
> > We're talking about something more like the Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc.
> > v. Nintendo of Am., Inc. case.
>
> So there are as wide a variety of games playable on the Transport
> Tycoon Deluxe engine as on the Nintendo Entertainment System, are
> there? And you think the factual situation is parallel to this: "The
> Game Genie merely enhances the audiovisual displays (or underlying
> data bytes) that originate in Nintendo game cartridges. The altered
> displays do not incorporate a portion of a copyrighted work in some
> form."
It probably would be a good idea for the openttd people to
make sure their engine can do other stuff -- maybe implement
a ship-based game, maybe a photo organizer, whatever...
That would certainly make their position stronger.
But I'm dubious that increased commercial success of the affected
engine is likely to decrease the success of an infringement suit.
>
> > We're not talking a sequel here, we're talking about ephemeral
> > changes in appearance.
>
> Rubbish. Go read the website.
Could you be more specific? I've looked at the
web site, and didn't see anything indicating that
changes to the game would not vanish as soon
as it is run under the original engine.
This was definitely NOT the case with Microstar's
MAP files.
> > OpenTTD is not distributing art which merges with the original
> > copyrighted work. Microstar was distributing arg with merged
> > with the original copyrighted work.
>
> Rubbish. Micro Star was distributing user-created game "levels", and
> the only theory on which they were derivative works was "mise en
> scene" -- characters, objects, setting, etc. -- when played using Duke
> Nukem 3-D.
As i see it, the judge was pointing out that the MAP files -- which
represent the scenes -- had status similar to art. I don't see how
that applies to openttd.
Once again, when you use the official software, any supposed
changes are invisible.
> > [Also, I continue to be annoyed by your personal attacks, but
> > I refuse to believe that personal attacks have any redeeming
> > value.]
>
> I acknowledge that the level of acrimony in some of my messages (not
> particularly in the one to which this is a response) has been on the
> high side. I will probably end up, in the long run, wishing that I
> had kept my temper systematically under better rein. But if you can't
> see that your credibility is at risk here -- in a way that it is not
> in the GPL debate alone -- after the comments that numerous third
> parties have made along the way, then it would be a kindness on my
> part to succeed in apprising you of that fact.
I'm not particularly concerned about my credibility. I place a
much higher priority on getting the facts straight.
[As an aside: I believe that what you perceive as me being rude
malicious or whatever is primarily matters of focus, though of
course other issues like amount of time spent researching the
issues and any underlying misunderstandings have an influence
here.]
Anyways, if I'm off base then people shouldn't be paying much
attention to me -- if people believe I'm correct when I'm not,
that serves them no good. On the other hand, if I am correct,
I'd like to be understood -- again, people just blindly listening
to me without thinking things through isn't going to do them
much good. [And these same principles hold for anyone
in any of these discussions -- people need to think things
through for themselves even if it's not me that's saying those
things.]
In other words: credibility is somewhat (though not
completely) overrated.
Thanks,
--
Raul
Reply to: